Split Thread The Towers should not hve collapsed (split from Gravysites)

[CptColumbo]

Actually... 1500 oC - 2000 oC ranges between 2700 oF and almost 4000 oF. By comparison most office fires don't exceed much more than 1800 to 2000 oF (1000-1100 oC). It rather seems he is assuming that the fires or some combustibles burning were in the 3 to 4000 oF range...

The argument he makes is a straw man at best since at no point has NIST or any one else claimed that the fires were ever that hot (1500 oC - 2000 oC).

Bolding mine.
He/she was using a blanket decleration that it could never happen.
I'm well aware that there was no need for the fire to reach 2000 degrees C to cause the collapse of the towers.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

It's not a strawman, since obviously you're arguing that the visible yellow-white material was produced by a fire that doesn't even burn yellow-white-hot.

Or what else? Magic? God? Thermite?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2371/2153917025_9324ca8f0a.jpg?v=0

Electrical short circuits? combination of metals? aluminum? Oxygen tanks from the plane? Who knows... passing on the range of alternatives... Just because I read NIST doesn't mean I have to agree entirely with either side... If that's supposed to be a thermite reaction it's remarkably 'docile' compared with what one would expect seeing one...

 

[Dabljuh]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2371/2153917025_9324ca8f0a.jpg?v=0

Electrical short circuits? combination of metals? aluminum? Oxygen tanks from the plane? Who knows... passing on the range of alternatives... Just because I read NIST doesn't mean I have to agree entirely with either side... If that's supposed to be a thermite reaction it's remarkably 'docile' compared with what one would expect seeing one...

None of these alternative explanations really strike me as explaining the observed in a convincing fashion. Oxygen tanks would explode and cause a short outburst of flames. Short circuits don't cause this amount. I refuted aluminium earlier.

Note that this would not be a thermate reaction per se (which would have happened in the inside of the core) but instead, the thermate product - sulfur/managenese-rich iron flowing from the central column to the edge (due to buckling of the floors - the peripherial columns are missing)

 

[GlennB]

....
thermite was likely used on the day of 9/11
....

How?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Wait, now you're listening to Jones? You're meant to look at the evidence that Jones presents, not at his interpretation of this evidence. His interpretation is well known in that it's thermate residue.

However, the evidence itself rules out welding products. In that segment he focuses on the analysis of a piece of previously metal and only touches the topic of the microspheres peripherially. The possibility that there could have been thermite used before 9/11 is not refuted, although we have no evidence to suggest so. The NYFDs witnesses, NASA, and the notorious video suggest that regardless of the past of thermite usage in the WTC, thermite was likely used on the day of 9/11.

The videos I posted do not indeed answer all of your questions. Unless you want to go through a host of more videos and truther links, I suggest you write him an e-mail, asking him to take on each individual point that you still take issue with.

I've been looking at his evidence for years now. None of what you've presented is anything new. And his interpretation of his results as being from thermate is demonstrably wrong. The evidence he presents does not speak to thermate at all, or actually points away from that compound being used; I submit his presentation of 1,3-diphenylpropane and his identification of alternate elements such as silicon, potassium, etc., as contradicting his own thesis.

Going back to the topic: You offered these videos as providing evidence that the structure of the microspheres eliminates alternate sources of formation and nails that genesis down to 9/11. They don't even come close; hell, you yourself admits that it only "touches the topic of the microspheres peripherially". So why did you present them? That makes your answer a fundimentally dishonest one, to provide videos as a response knowing they didn't answer it. So one more time: Explain to us this "nanostructure", explain the characteristics of the particles, and explain how those are supposed to eliminate alternate sources of generation. Those videos did not answer that. And you are not answering it. None of what you said has come close to supporting your assertion that the "... nanostructure cannot be created by welding, or random corrosion in a sulfur rich environment", or that "... (t)hese nanostructural differences allow for much more refined and more accurate statements regarding the genesis than a simple chromatographic analysis for the distribution of various elements or compounds within a sample". Nothing of what you've said or presented addresses any of that.

And going back to your other post:

... he actually analyzed the nanostructure of the samples, which showed that a mixture containing sulfur and manganese - not drywall, not computer screens - mixed with molten iron - not steel, and then cooled.

Not a single thing of what you're saying there indicates thermite. That the sample he analyzed contained sulfur is simply not unsurprising, not when you consider the plethora of other sources it could have come from. And yes, it indeed could and most likely did come from drywall, computer screens, or engine emissions. None of Jones's work or your answers rule that out at all. And those sources are definitely known to have been present at the towers, unlike thermate, which is ruled out by a plethora of evidence.

Furthermore, he provides one piece of evidence supporting the notion that combustion liberated chemicals such as sulfur from the buildings contents: His mention of 1,3-diphenylpropane. Jones tries to say that it came from the supposed substrate supposedly holding the thermate together, whereas the original source he relies on for proof of that chemical's presence notes that it would have been liberated from the thousands of computer monitors present during the fires. The liberation of 1,3-DPP shows that chemicals present in the contents did get liberated during the fires. Sulfur is another element present in the contents (as a matter of fact, present in the same specific source: The computer monitors). The liberation of that, as well as the known fact that drywall and other sulfur containing objects in the towers easily explains the presence of that element. Yet, Jones says it comes from the thermate. Without proof (he merely notes its presence, he never ever manages to prove its source).

I've already explained the manganese in a previous post. Once again, Jones gets something wrong.

None of what you say or claim Jones has done has yet to eliminate sources such as welding as the genesis of microspheres. And you have in fact demonstrated that you do not fully understand what he's been saying either. Let me bring you back to your earlier post:

ElMondo, look at the nanostructure of the samples that Jones has investigated. This sort of nanostructure cannot be created by welding, or random corrosion in a sulfur rich environment. That's completely out of the question.

How is it out of the question? What about the nanostructure indicates that it cannot be created by welding? What about the nanostructure indicates that the eutectic reactions had nothing to do with their formation (a thesis I had not presented - I merely pointed out that some melting had occurred due to that - but since you brought it up, you can explain it)? You're the one making the claim, you need to be the one to explain the "What?" and the "How?".

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Oh, some more...

However, the evidence itself rules out welding products.

Already being handled in another post. Read above.

The NYFDs witnesses, NASA, and the notorious video suggest that regardless of the past of thermite usage in the WTC, thermite was likely used on the day of 9/11.

Wrong. Demonstrate. Show the witnesses, point out which ones testify that they've seen phenomena indicating thermite. And show how NASA supposedly demonstrates this.

 

[~enigma~]

Did you guys shut off your baloney detectors? Or do you just enjoy watching a dog eat his own vomit?

 

[Dabljuh]

Rubbish. I have seen molten aluminium prepared for continuous casting experiments that was glowing a dull red.

As it happens, aluminium has a 4 times lower factor of emissivity - that means, the energy released as (visible) radiation for aluminium is 4x smaller than that of iron/steel. That means you'd see the same blackbody colors at the same range of temperatures with aluminium in a dark room, but in daylight conditions, you'd have to heat aluminum to about 2300°C to see the same brightness (not color!) as iron at 1300°C, when it begins to become bright/whitish. (W=o*T^4)

Seriously, whatever it is, it's not aluminium. And if it's iron, it's minimally 1300°C hot before it pours from the windows - It is unrealistic to assume that the office fire would heat a significant chunk of anything above 800°C.

 

[Dabljuh]

How is it out of the question? What about the nanostructure indicates that it cannot be created by welding? What about the nanostructure indicates that the eutectic reactions had nothing to do with their formation (a thesis I had not presented - I merely pointed out that some melting had occurred due to that - but since you brought it up, you can explain it)? You're the one making the claim, you need to be the one to explain the "What?" and the "How?".

You're arguing a solidified eutectic - which is what the nanostructure shows: a granular structure indicative of a solidified eutectic - its not simply welding products that came in contact with gypsum - a solidified eutectic of mostly iron, sulfur, manganese, fluorine, potassium could somehow have ocurred due to office fires? You're arguing that NIST or anyone else has never before 2001 investigated a fire where computer screens were burned to explain the surprising appearance of 1,3-DPP? In a quantity that dwarfed all others?

Are you completely off your socks?

 

[Dave_46]

You made a categoric claim

Aluminium doesn't glow visibly even around the 1500°C range. <snip>

I challenged it

Rubbish. I have seen molten aluminium prepared for continuous casting experiments that was glowing a dull red.

Now you come back with this

As it happens, aluminium has a 4 times lower factor of emissivity - that means, the energy released as (visible) radiation for aluminium is 4x smaller than that of iron/steel. That means you'd see the same blackbody colors at the same range of temperatures with aluminium in a dark room, but in daylight conditions, you'd have to heat aluminum to about 2300°C to see the same brightness (not color!) as iron at 1300°C, when it begins to become bright/whitish. (W=o*T^4)

Seriously, whatever it is, it's not aluminium. And if it's iron, it's minimally 1300°C hot before it pours from the windows - It is unrealistic to assume that the office fire would heat a significant chunk of anything above 800°C.

Introducing emissivity, as if it affected your original claim. I'm sure I saw a set of goalposts around here.

By the way, I have used, and calibrated radiometers for fire testing purposes, so I do have a bit of an idea about emissivity.

 

[1337m4n]

How about, you prove for a change that there was no thermite?

You got to be ******** me. You propose the existence of something. I propose the nonexistence. I can't show evidence supporting my claim. You can show evidence supporting your claim. You bring the evidence, or fail to do so.

Is anyone else rendered utterly speechless? I am rendered utterly speechless. I hope I'm not alone.

 

[~enigma~]

Is anyone else rendered utterly speechless? I am rendered utterly speechless. I hope I'm not alone.

No...did you expect anything sensible to come out of the idiot?

Civility please. Name calling of forum members is not acceptable.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LibraryLady

 

[Newtons Bit]

Is anyone else rendered utterly speechless? I am rendered utterly speechless. I hope I'm not alone.

He's a Truther. Dishonesty in arguments is one of their primary weapons.

Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and dishonesty...dishonesty and surprise.... Our two weapons are dishonesty and surprise...and ruthless idiocy.... Our *three* weapons are dishonesty, surprise, and ruthless idiocy...and an almost fanatical devotion to the anyone named Jones.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as dishonesty, surprise.... I'll come in again as a different sockpuppet.

 

[Dabljuh]

Is anyone else rendered utterly speechless? I am rendered utterly speechless. I hope I'm not alone.

No, you're still on ignore, and you will remain so, for good reason. You seem not to be able to grasp the difference between the nonexistence of the manifestation of a general concept, (office fires that burn 1500-2000°C hot) and the nonexistence of a specific compound in a specific time and location (thermite in the WTC around 9/11)

You do not seem to be able to grasp that there is a subtle difference between the two. There are no office fires that are capable of burning significantly hotter than around 800°C - but the notion could be easily falsified by producing an office fire with temperatures in the 1500-2000°C range, or even giving a single example of such an occurrence.

Just as well is it possible to falsify the notion of thermate usage on 9/11 by either not finding thermate residue in the limited post-collapse pile, or by sufficiently explaining these phenomena with means that are at least as likely as thermate usage. Neither of which occured.

Thanks for confirming why I put you on the ignore list, enigma will be good company for you there, after all.

 

[~enigma~]

No, you're still on ignore, and you will remain so, for good reason. You seem not to be able to grasp the difference between the nonexistence of the manifestation of a general concept, (office fires that burn 1500-2000°C hot) and the nonexistence of a specific compound in a specific time and location (thermite in the WTC around 9/11)

You do not seem to be able to grasp that there is a subtle difference between the two. There are no office fires that are capable of burning significantly hotter than around 800°C - but the notion could be easily falsified by producing an office fire with temperatures in the 1500-2000°C range, or even giving a single example of such an occurrence.

Just as well is it possible to falsify the notion of thermate usage on 9/11 by either not finding thermate residue in the limited post-collapse pile, or by sufficiently explaining these phenomena with means that are at least as likely as thermate usage. Neither of which occured.

Thanks for confirming why I put you on the ignore list, enigma will be good company for you there, after all.

Yeah...the stickman is on ignore like i am yet you respond to stickman as you did to some of my posts...you are such a shining example of trutherism. BTW, are you gonna address post #297 or are you still gonna be dishonest?

 

[Dabljuh]

He's a Truther. Dishonesty in arguments is one of their primary weapons.

I'd rather regret putting you on ignore since you may actually be of some use, so before I do that, explain to me exactly why "truthers" would have an interest in being genuinely dishonest, rather than just wrong (like I believe the moon-landing-never-happened-guys are) and how you feel this incentive compared to the incentive towards dishonesty by people actually involved in 9/11 such as the ones from NIST, the white house, Silverstein, FEMA, NORAD etc?

 

[Minadin]

You're not. Look it up yourself. Prove me wrong. That's your job. If you fail to do so in the long run, you're obliged to call me "Daddy".

See, real scientists don't demand proof, only dumbass college dropouts believe they need "proof" to "prove something".

How about, you prove for a change that there was no thermite?

You got to be ******** me. You propose the existence of something. I propose the nonexistence. I can't show evidence supporting my claim. You can show evidence supporting your claim. You bring the evidence, or fail to do so.

Waste of time.

You're all over the place here. Are you not able to see it?

 

[~enigma~]

You're all over the place here. Are you not able to see it?

I did say dog but vomit might have been the wrong word

 

[1337m4n]

No, you're still on ignore

Yet you have replied to my post, Dabljuh.

If you would like a tutorial on the proper function of the Ignore feature, I can give you one, since you apparently seem to be having trouble with it.

No, you're still on ignore, and you will remain so, for good reason. You seem not to be able to grasp the difference between the nonexistence of the manifestation of a general concept, (office fires that burn 1500-2000°C hot) and the nonexistence of a specific compound in a specific time and location (thermite in the WTC around 9/11)

You do not seem to be able to grasp that there is a subtle difference between the two. There are no office fires that are capable of burning significantly hotter than around 800°C - but the notion could be easily falsified by producing an office fire with temperatures in the 1500-2000°C range, or even giving a single example of such an occurrence.

You could document all office fires in history and confirm that none have ever reached the indicated temperatures. It would be difficult, granted, but not impossible. Ultimately, no different in essence from the idiotic burden you place on us to "prove there was no thermite".

You also fail to acknowledge that just because something has yet to happen, does not mean that it is impossible. No intelligent life has ever been found outside of Earth--does that mean it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to exist? Because that is precisely what your bad logic amounts to.

Just as well is it possible to falsify the notion of thermate usage on 9/11 by either not finding thermate residue in the limited post-collapse pile,

Good. Because none was found. Prove me wrong.

While you're at it, please look up "burden of proof" for us all.




Oh and since you're probably going to read this because I am apparently only on "fake ignore", allow me to say that putting everyone who, in your opinion, is "stupid" on Ignore is extremely infantile. I have people on my Ignore list, yes, but not because they are "stupid". Rather, I have them there because they are either interested only in trolling and not debating, or because they are vicious Jew-haters who are not worth entertaining with responses of any kind. Honestly, what are you afraid of? That you will be beaten in debate by someone "stupid"?

 

[Dabljuh]

You're all over the place here. Are you not able to see it?

How about you learn about falsification? You can't prove the correctness of a theory. What you can do however, is you can prove the incorrectness of a theory. That's called fallibilism. But even without proof to differentiate between two distinctively separate theories, there are grades that can be used to differentiate the better ones from the worse ones. For example, the explanative and predictive value of a theory, or Ockham's razor. That's called critical rationalism.

When you understand all of this, you're already one step further away from being entirely useless.